Religion is not About God

[Dalek Prime]

Just out of curiosity, which explorer made it past peak expansion and back for you to know this as fact? Just curious, as a dumb provincial. Gonna go drool on my bib, now.

I never claimed it as a fact, I said it was my understanding based on what scientists have theorized about the universe. And they would be the same scientists who have come up with the theories about the universe.

Do you not recall my recent thread regarding an argument with a lecturer of philosophy? By your logic, I should not have argued with him, because he's the 'expert'. Look, physicists can theorize all they like. They can't see it though, or prove it either. So, what do you want me to do? Cave?

[attofishpi]

There is no better 'background story' to hearing it direct from the source - something everyone on this site is lacking, you included.

How arrogant and idiotic.

How am i arrogant in stating i am communicated directly by God?

Your belief that you ALONE know some ultimate source BLINDS YOU to all else.

What knowledge do you possess that i am blinded to?

And it's extraordinarily disrespectful and hateful for you to not see the sacred in all.

Where is my hate? Seems its espouses from your ignorant simple mind controlling your vexatious fingertips.

[Reflex]

Not according to history. I've said elsewhere that Christianity was cooked up by the Romans in an attempt to win the hearts and minds of Jerusalem. Its spread was achieved by violent pagan warlords who converted and with the support of Rome, destroyed their enemies. So yes, having wiped out the opposition there was in Europe a brief spell of limited religious harmony and cooperation, not that it did much to prevent political turmoil.

You were serious? That's like saying men didn't really go to the moon and the story behind 9-11 was fabricated. Joesph Atwill and his theory has been thoroughly debunked and believing it anyways destroys your credibility. Everything that follows is poisoned by your belief. You would have better off sticking with Hobbes' response.

The rest of your post is, well..., too infantile to comment on. For example:

Me:

It can even be said that this presumed first cause of science and the God of religion are one and the same; the former being the quantitative aspect of cognition and the latter the qualitative. But whether we call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Your response:

Call it what you like. What has it got to do with "personal wholeness and social coherence"?

Answer: Quite a bit when you consider the underlying premise: "call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."" To paraphrase what one physicist/author wrote: A leaf cannot turn nor a thought stir without simultaneously affecting the most distant star.

[uwot]

You were serious?

Totally. There is no evidence for an historical character called Jesus Christ, whereas the development of Christianity is very well documented.

That's like saying men didn't really go to the moon and the story behind 9-11 was fabricated. Joesph Atwill and his theory has been thoroughly debunked and believing it anyways destroys your credibility.

Well, it's a completely unrelated issue and I don't believe any conspiracy theory about 9/11 anyway. I do however believe that men did really go to the moon.

Everything that follows is poisoned by your belief. You would have better off sticking with Hobbes' response.

What belief are you referring to?

The rest of your post is, well..., too infantile to comment on. For example:

You are ducking the question. Is that the robust personality your religion has furnished you with?

Me:

It can even be said that this presumed first cause of science and the God of religion are one and the same; the former being the quantitative aspect of cognition and the latter the qualitative. But whether we call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Your response:

Call it what you like. What has it got to do with "personal wholeness and social coherence"?

Answer: Quite a bit when you consider the underlying premise: "call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."" To paraphrase what one physicist/author wrote: A leaf cannot turn nor a thought stir without simultaneously affecting the most distant star.

It's not simultaneous, but yes, every event has an effect everywhere eventually; though this might change if the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate. You haven't explained the logical connection between any quantum field or circle of infinity and "personal wholeness and social coherence". God I get, but your thread is titled Religion is not About God.

[Lacewing]

There is no better 'background story' to hearing it direct from the source - something everyone on this site is lacking, you included.

How arrogant and idiotic.

How am i arrogant in stating i am communicated directly by God?

I was referring to you setting yourself apart as gaining the utmost answers from the ultimate source for all (which is loopy enough), WHILE you claim that others don't have access to such clarity and awareness as valid as yours. I don't know why you cannot see how arrogant and idiotic that is. People don't need your "source" to have vast awareness and answers. Your trip is your own... it is not all there is.

Your belief that you ALONE know some ultimate source BLINDS YOU to all else.

What knowledge do you possess that i am blinded to?

My point was that when you think that you see a complete picture from an ultimate source, and you're intoxicated by the identity that supposedly gives you, why would you look beyond that? You don't think there is anything beyond that... so you cannot see anything beyond that. But obviously, your awareness and answers are not a complete picture that applies to everyone else.

And it's extraordinarily disrespectful and hateful for you to not see the sacred in all.

Where is my hate?

Oh, was I mistaken? Do you actually see the sacred in all? It appears that you separate things out and condemn them... which would not be loving or respectful, would it? Your "source" appears to be as detached as you appear to want to be. (Not surprising.)

[attofishpi]

You were serious?

Totally. There is no evidence for an historical character called Jesus Christ, whereas the development of Christianity is very well documented.

I'm going to have to sound a bit Monty Pythonish here.. but you are suggesting that the Romans conjured up a story about some bloke being nailed to a crucifix in a distant land then sold the story to the Jews and only some of them ended up believing it ....all on the off chance that it would control the masses!!!!!!


Haaaaaaahahahahahahahahha!!!!

Lunacy - obvious reason the idiot Lacewing is on your side.

[HexHammer]

How am i arrogant in stating i am communicated directly by God?

Over the years many have claimed to been talking to God, and murdered, destroyed property and what not in his name, because they were 100% certain that they were commanded to do weird stuff.
Such people are usually skitzo.

How do you know it was God and not a fallen angel?

[attofishpi]

How do you know it was God and not a fallen angel?

Get a grip. Ooo after all these years it might have been a "falled angel" cos it was on its knees sucking my nob and feathers went everywhere.

You fool.

[uwot]

I'm going to have to sound a bit Monty Pythonish here.. but you are suggesting that the Romans conjured up a story about some bloke being nailed to a crucifix in a distant land then sold the story to the Jews and only some of them ended up believing it ....all on the off chance that it would control the masses!!!!!!

It's common practise. From witchdoctors to popes, most communities have their 'spiritual' leaders who are party to some alleged sacred truth which gives them executive power. The Romans weren't too fussy about what god was worshipped; from experience they learnt that while conquering other people's land was relatively straightforward, trying to conquer their beliefs was counterproductive. Steal people's property and they'll get over their loss, but tell them they are talking bollocks and they will never forgive you.

Haaaaaaahahahahahahahahha!!!!

Presumably you are aware of something obvious which I am oblivious to.

Lunacy - obvious reason the idiot Lacewing is on your side.

That's not very nice. When god makes itself known to you, does it encourage this sort of thing?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm going to have to sound a bit Monty Pythonish here.. but you are suggesting that the Romans conjured up a story about some bloke being nailed to a crucifix in a distant land then sold the story to the Jews and only some of them ended up believing it ....all on the off chance that it would control the masses!!!!!!

The sort of culture you are talking about believed that Caesar and Alexander (among many others) were divine; the sons of Zeus.
We have as much reason to think that is true as that Jesus was also divine.

he's not the son of God he's just a naughty boy.

[Reflex]

From “GIGO” to Christianity being a Roman conspiracy (which, of course, is totally irrelevant to what this thread is about), the atheist response so far has been truly fascinating, but sparse and hardly salient.

Peter Hitchens, brother of atheist author Christopher Hitchens, gives us some interesting insights into the atheist mind in his book, Rage Against God. He should know: he was a virulent atheist himself at one time. Ah, the freedom atheism affords! How liberating! Or so the theory goes. The universe is a whole; no thing or being exists or lives in isolation. Self-realization is potentially evil if it is antisocial. It is literally true: “No man lives by himself.” Without discipline or direction, liberty is a self-destroying technique of existence because its motivation is unintelligent (obviously enough based on what we see coming from the atheists here), unconditioned, and uncontrolled. Unbridled self-will and unregulated self-expression equal unmitigated selfishness and the acme of self-deception. Liberty without the associated and ever-increasing conquest of self is a figment of egoistic imagination. Self-motivated liberty is a conceptual illusion, a cruel deception — a license masquerading in the garments of liberty and the forerunner of abject bondage.

The overarching reality of religion, independently of a God concept, is the unconscious, vaguely conscious or conscious realization that every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting unit in the whole universe and that cosmic socialization constitutes the highest form of personality unification.

You were serious?

Totally. There is no evidence for an historical character called Jesus Christ, whereas the development of Christianity is very well documented.

I'm going to have to sound a bit Monty Pythonish here.. but you are suggesting that the Romans conjured up a story about some bloke being nailed to a crucifix in a distant land then sold the story to the Jews and only some of them ended up believing it ....all on the off chance that it would control the masses!!!!!!


Haaaaaaahahahahahahahahha!!!!

Lunacy - obvious reason the idiot Lacewing is on your side.

It is rather silly, isn't it? (An understatement if there ever was one!) I mean, talk about grasping at straws! But even if true or relevant, it proves the premise of the OP and that of the article I linked to which was written by an atheist. That dude (uwot) is in serious need of a course in reading comprehension and rational thinking.

Uwot: do you think 9-11 was a government conspiracy and that man never landed on the moon?

[HexHammer]

How do you know it was God and not a fallen angel?

Get a grip. Ooo after all these years it might have been a "falled angel" cos it was on its knees sucking my nob and feathers went everywhere.

You fool.

So you don't have anything solid, and only grasp things out of thin air ..that's ok. Now we know what category you fall under.

[Reflex]

Noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book last book, Billions & Billions:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Brilliant, no? It's enough to make any self-respecting atheist cringe in shame. Yet, it's the kind of stuff we see coming from atheists here all the time.

Leaving the God-concept out of count, what is a human being? What does it mean to be human? These are tough questions, important questions whose conscious and unconscious answers weigh heavily upon us, the kind of questions religion deals with. But as important as they are, few people — especially nowadays — undertake the task of seriously answering them.

I suggest that a human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, and Freedom and necessity — relating to itself and that the work of unifying the synthesis is forever recommencing. I also suggest that unless we are relating to the world from some region of our consciousness where autonomy is clearly manifested and our natural urge of life is converted into the social art of living, we shall only open the way to diversions and extravagant fancies; that unless our present desires transformed into higher longings that are capable of lasting attainment and the commonplace lure of existence transferred from one of conventional and established ideas to the higher realms of unexplored ideas and undiscovered ideals, will quickly revert to the simple urge of living — the attainment of the satisfaction of present desires. I suggest that if the evolution of the soul fails to progress, we will find ourselves functioning on the animal level of existence — we will have failed to be truly human.

Given these parameters of what it is to be human, some humans are more human than others. That is, some are more cognizant of the synthesis than others. Some human beings are content with relating to only the finite-temporal-necessary aspect of their being; others will settle for nothing less than consciously relating to the Infinite-Eternal-Free as a living presence, a person. A person is free to disagree, but what happens then? You’re left with no explanation for a religionist's devotion other than a susceptibility to fraud.

Let's take the question 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' The question requires an ontological answer, but the closest thing to an answer atheistic 'science' has to offer is fluctuations in a quantum field whose values mysteriously average in such a way as to form a universe in which self-consciousness can emerge. When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses blissful ignorance and the absence of a moral compass:

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
  'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.
  I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
  I don't know, but not that (God)
  Anything that can happen does (with God being the soul exception), so God isn't necessary.

The atheist's knee-jerk response to hearing a descriptive phrase like “transcendent ideal-image is ask, “What can this jackass mean if not God?” Well, I honestly don't know. That's something each person must decide for themselves. But consciously or unconsciously, we all want to be part of something greater than ourselves. It's that undercurrent of desire that gives voice to the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mohammad, Buddha, and yes, even Jesus Christ. What would have become of them if no one wanted to join their respective cause?

[uwot]

Uwot: do you think 9-11 was a government conspiracy and that man never landed on the moon?

I gather you missed this post:

You were serious?

Totally. There is no evidence for an historical character called Jesus Christ, whereas the development of Christianity is very well documented.

That's like saying men didn't really go to the moon and the story behind 9-11 was fabricated. Joesph Atwill and his theory has been thoroughly debunked and believing it anyways destroys your credibility.

Well, it's a completely unrelated issue and I don't believe any conspiracy theory about 9/11 anyway. I do however believe that men did really go to the moon.

Everything that follows is poisoned by your belief. You would have better off sticking with Hobbes' response.

What belief are you referring to?

The rest of your post is, well..., too infantile to comment on. For example:

You are ducking the question. Is that the robust personality your religion has furnished you with?

Me:

It can even be said that this presumed first cause of science and the God of religion are one and the same; the former being the quantitative aspect of cognition and the latter the qualitative. But whether we call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Your response:

Call it what you like. What has it got to do with "personal wholeness and social coherence"?

Answer: Quite a bit when you consider the underlying premise: "call it 'God' or the 'quantum field,' it is "the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."" To paraphrase what one physicist/author wrote: A leaf cannot turn nor a thought stir without simultaneously affecting the most distant star.

It's not simultaneous, but yes, every event has an effect everywhere eventually; though this might change if the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate. You haven't explained the logical connection between any quantum field or circle of infinity and "personal wholeness and social coherence". God I get, but your thread is titled Religion is not About God.

[Reflex]

It's not simultaneous, but yes, every event has an effect everywhere eventually; though this might change if the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate. You haven't explained the logical connection between any quantum field or circle of infinity and "personal wholeness and social coherence". God I get, but your thread is titled Religion is not About God.

Well, actually it is simultaneous, the expansion of the universe is irrelevant to the fact of quantum entanglement, and God or no God, if you can't see the connection you have all the intellectual depth of a dehydrated sponge (or Lacewing...take your pick).